19 comments:

The news was not terribly clear to me: what did the Solicitor General (Kagan) say to the Supreme Court that persuaded them not to review the 9th Circuit's ruling that the Pope's was not immune from suit by former molested children? Further, did the Catholic majority feel they must avoid showing favoritism? Can I sue the Queen of England now, or the Grand Burgher of Lux?

Yes, a good night to all and the end to a great day. It was wonderful reading a few Supreme Court cases.

A few thoughts crossed my mind while reading them. It strikes me that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a relatively weak and ineffective Chief Justice. Second, I am so glad that Sandra Day O'Connor is off the bench. No more tortured logic just to get a concurring opinion out the door.

Yes, the court is now more conservative, but also, and more importantly, it is releasing solid and well-reasoned arguments.

Saw the Tut exhibit today with Deena, at the Art Museum, a mere block away. Quite an impressive set up, I must say.

The thing is, I can read the hieroglyphics. I can see where the names given to the statues do not match what is carved directly into the statues. So how they arrive at those attributions is not clear to me. It's possible the royal retinue have more than one name. I can also read things that are not described on the Museum placards. In fact, pretty much everything looks like a hieroglyphic to me. For example, they say "wooden model of a boat," but I think, "d-p-t, assurance of conveyance through the underworld." The wooden boat is a three dimensional representation of a hieroglyph, and it means what the hieroglyph means. They could use my help over there, but I'm not offering. I had to resist boring Deena by pointing out the designs of jewelry actually do spell out words and convey concepts beyond the Museum's descriptions of materials used.

We raced through. I'll probably go back. What the heck.

"Pectoral with scarab (kh-f-r, which means a lot of things but they're not saying any of that) placed within the mummy wrappings to protect the heart" How odd, considering the heart is removed from the mummified body and is sitting over there in a canopic jar, wrapped separately. Wouldn't the pectoral with its protective amulet reasonably be placed over the jar? Please. It's protecting alright, but not the heart.

We didn't watch the 3-D movie, had lunch instead. So I think I'll take someone else to see that later. Or maybe I'll watch it twice.